




































-^^.^ 




o V 






^0• 




c, \r 
0^ ^'^'J- o. 



; -^^0^ 












^. -^z 




vO 










V' .^r^% <^ 





■Ht. -^is • «'' "^ o'iolw. <,<■ *<> -ells • *^ ^ °o^ 
%'W^'J>^ \--f>X\^^ %'5^'y V* 






■» o 



" • o, •^^ 






y% 











^>^ <-^ o''/iN'^^^^:^^Pfe,''w ''■^ ^-^ "-J^M^^^^ 'J^ t"^ 







0' 




^^•n^. 




^> 






^-^ ^"^ o'J 





■^ 























CRITICISM 



ON THE 



declaration of Jn^c|)cnirf net, 



LITERARY DOCUMENT. 



BY MON DROIT. 



NEW YORK. 

FOR SALE AT THE NEWS OFFICES. 
1846. 



CRITICISM 



ON TBE 



medaration of Jn&fpen^enct, 



AS A 



LITERARY DOCUMENT. 



BY MON DROIT. 



NEW YORK, 

FOR SALE AT THE NEWS OFFICES. 

1846. 



/ 1 



.s-?^ 






-.«•>! 



CRITICISM, &c 



Seventy years having passed away, since this celebrated pro- 
duction was pubUshed, it will not be deemed disrespectful to its 
signers, or invidious toward any order of partisans, if we bring 
to its examination the same rigid impartiality, allowable in criti- 
cising passages of Longinus or a composition of Aristotle. 

As it may be said of the Declaration, that it accomplished the 
purposes for which it was designed, all unfavorable observations are 
as supererogatory, as were the sinister reflections of Buonaparte 
on the disposition of the British forces at Waterloo — a triumphant 
reply to all which consisted in the brief assertion of the respon- 
dants, " we beat you." So it may be rejoined with like propriety ; 
for as much as it was the end to be attained, and not the means to 
attain that end which became important on the day of that event- 
ful battle ; it is true, neither the glory of the victory is diminished, 
or the consolations of the vanquished increased, by the imperfec- 
tion of the means used. But so far as an analogy exists in the 
two cases, it bears on the political aim and sequences of the 
Declaration of Independence ; upon which topic I do not pro- 
pose at present to remark. Its literary merits and demerits are a 
different, and as I think, a fair subject of critical examination. 
To this aspect, and to this alone, do I invite the attention of all 
those whose curiosity or peculiarities lead them to make a dis- 
tinction between what is good and bad, proper and improper. 

The document proposed for consideration, has every where 
and at all times received the plaudits and huzzas of the multitude. 
The question comes now to be considered, whether upon a careful 
review, it deserves the approbation of the scholar. "Whether we 
ought to have a more exalted idea of some of the actors in the 
drama of the revolution, in consequence of this production, or a 



less one, is certainly a legitimate subject of inquiry. But that 
matter can only be settled by a close inspection of the document 
itself. I Understand to be sure, that great men will not always 
bear close inspection; but who ever claims to be a great writer, 
or for whomsoever that reputation is claimed, their works must 
abide that test, or their claims must fall. 

These brief preliminaries being all I deem clearly necessary 
upon commencing the subject, I invite the examination of my 
readers to the first paragraph. Supposing it to be familiar^ to 
every one, or if not, that it is in every one's law book where refer- 
ence can be had to it any moment, I will not quote it entire.* 
My observations upon this passage will be brief, because the pur- 
pose of it for the most part, seems to be for an opening of the 
subject, and for an harmless soother of asperities expected to 
follow. 

**When in the course of human events" it appears expedient 
" for one people to dissolve the political bands which have con- 
nected them with an other," I admit it would not be improper for 
that people to declare the causes which made that expediency 
apparent to them. But I entirely deny the propriety of a similar 
declaration "when in the course of human events it becomes 
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have 
connected them with an other. That necessity knows no law, is a 
thoroughly established maxim — that it knows no apologies — can 
neither make them or receive them, is as evident as the maxim of 
which it is but another version. More strenuously should I deny 
the propriety of a declaration of causes, when a necessity (neces- 
sity is obligatory if it is any thing) obliges them " to assume 
among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal 
station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle 
them." 

A mere philological criticism was no part of my design; per- 
haps then 1 ought to apologise for noticing the queer position of 
the preposition "^o," in the lines last quoted. To assume a sta- 
tion, which the laws of nature entitled them to occupy ; would 
have been natural, and perhaps easy : but " to assume a station to 
which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them," it 

• Note A. 



6 

occurs to me, would have been an exploit as awkward in the per- 
formance as it is in the grammar. 

It is the ideas however,* and not the mode in which they are 
expressed that I purpose to examine. To these let us return, 
with all the indulgent tenderness for our national character, con- 
sistent with truth. If a gentleman in a ball-room had broken his 
thigh, so that it became necessary in the course of events, for him 
to assume a recumbent position ; would a decent respect to the 
company he was in require, that he should declare the causes 
why he could not dance ? I do not make this comparison for the 
sake of its mirth but simply as a conveaient parallel to illustrate 
the anti-climax of this peculiar species of gravity. 

" To declare the causes" which impel to certain acts, that had 
just been stated to arise from necessity and the laws of nature 
and of nature's God, favors the impression, that the writer had for- 
gotten at the close of his sentence, the ideas he had advanced at 
the beginning. It reminds me of the edifying exposition of a sick 
man to his physician. "Oh doctor," said the patient, "necessity 
obliges me to send for you." Well, said the physician, what is 
the matter ? " Oh Sir ! matter enough ; ray throat is all stopped 
up — can't breathe — head aches ready to split, with terrible pains 
in the side and back ; besides I a'nt very well myself." 

The distinction we ought to make, between the "laws of 
nature" and the "laws of nature's God," the writer, doubtless, 
were he living, would be able to explain. But being dead, we are 
left to conjecture what the difference is. I will put the best con- 
struction upon it, and suppose, by "the laws of nature" the writer 
meant that physical arrangement of the globe, by which an ocean 
separated us from the ruling power, making the propriety of an 
independent government, more obvious on that account. And by 
the expression "laws of nature's God" he contemplated those 
ever springing aspirations in the he^^rt of man, to possess all the 
liberty he could get, and power too. If this was the meaning, 
it suffers only for the want of an interpretation. If it was not, the 
latter clause is merely an useless expansion of the first-r-^a mod^i 
of expression admissible in the paroxysms of frantic eloquence; 
on a fourth of July ; but entirely out of plaqe in ^ g^^ve piec^ of 
writing.! 

♦ Note B. t Note C. 



6 

The expression "human events" I submit to the taste of the 
cultivated reader. Affairs, may be human or inhuman; divine or 
diabohcal. An " event" may be great or small, &c. But can 
humanity or inhumanity be predicated of " events ? " To be 
sure, human beings are actors frequently, in the scenes which 
when completed we call "events." Does that fact however, make 
them human? A pestilence — famine — the rise and fall of empire* 
and wars are events. Does the connection of human affairs with 
any of these events, make the event human 1 The error of the 
writer is however very small; consisting merely in attaching the 
same idea to the word '*'■ events" which a scholar would have 
attached to affairs. 

Events are abstractions ; in the mind of the pagan more or less 
connected yf'\\\\fate: and in the view of the christian with Divine 
Providence. In either case they are understood to be supra-hu- 
man. Truth, may bp divine ; but can it with strict propriety be 
CdiWe A human? A human truth would be nearly as inappreciable 
as a divine lie. Human beings may tell the truth ; that does not 
make the truth human ; because it is what exists irrespective of 
the man or of his veracity. So of events. They are passed, or 
are transpiring, or foreshadow their coming, and all this irrespec- 
tive of man. Events, therefore are not human. " To err, is 
human." 

My remarks upon the first paragraph, having been protracted 
far beyond any expectation or previous design; it may be proper 
to state here, that I do not meditate a querulous critic upon the 
whole piece. So far from that, I look upon the Declaration as 
possessing literary merit of a high order. It is too late to deny it, 
if one had the disposition. A composition that for seventy years 
can carry such a burthen of defects as this has, must possess 
great strength somewhere. I had rather carry the gates of Gaza 
than such a load. And since it was once discovered, that the 
great strength of a giant lay in his hair, let no neophile suppose, 
as a corresponding paradox, that the vigor of the composition 
under review, lies concealed in the unintelligible generalities at 
the beginning, or the sounding nonsense at the end. Whoever 
possesses sufficient acumen to distinguish flourishes of rhetoric 
from facts, will perceive (as he reads the passages that follow the 



one commencing thus — "The history of the present king of 
Great Britain, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations") 
that the bold, honest, straightforward recital of facts that follow, 
is a different affair altogether, both in style and sentiment from 
the verbiage that precedes it. But more of this in its appropriate 
place. 

The second paragraph of the Declaration, is the one on which 
I purpose to extend my reflections ; both because it is oftenest 
quoted, and as I think, most unhappily calculated to create the 
same confusion of ideas in the reader, that the mind of its writer 
unquestionably was troubled with. If I am charged with micro- 
scopic views, I shall treat the charge as captious, unless its author 
is able to show, that a different lens would lead to different conclu- 
sions. 

We will quote so much of it here as I purpose to comment 
upon ; that the reader of these pages may refer to it as often as 
occasion requires. 

" We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all men are 
created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with 
certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness ; that to secure these rights gov- 
ernments are instituted among men," &-c. 

It is to be observed that the preceding paragraph had closed 
with the sentiment, " that a decent respect to the opinions of man- 
kind required that they should declare the causes which impelled 
them" to certain acts. Now it occurs to me, that a decent respect 
to the hearers or readers of the document would have impelled its 
author immediately to declare those "causes." So far however 
from such a sequence, the author drops the subject of " causes" 
and goes into a statement of views, having not the least relation 
to what had preceded, nor any necessary connection with what 
was to follow. While the mind of the reader is occupied in vigor- 
ous efforts to discover the verity of the author's self-evident truths, 
he can hardly fail to forget that there was any necessity for a 
declaration of causes, or in fact any causes to declare. But this 
defect in the composition is doubtless pardonable, it is so common, 
and known to arise from the juvenile desire on the part of an 
author, to exhibit himself instead of his subject. 



8 

Let U8 see what the author holds to. Says he " we hold these 
truths to be self-evident," &c. — going on to make a statement of 
them. Is it not obvious to remark, that what is self-evident, 
needs no attestation 1 Is it not a needless piece of supererogation 
to declare, what in the same breath is affirmed to be evident with- 
out a declaration? What is self-evident, is, what is known. To 
inform men of what they knew before, seems but a slow way of 
increasing knowledge : nevertheless, the author of this part of the 
Declaration of Independence thought proper to undertake it. 
The measure of his success in this peculiar method of instruction, 
is a matter yet to be determined.* 

The verb " hold" in the sentence under review, is used in its 
metaphorical sense, and is undoubtedly appropriate, so far as the 
philology of the passage is concerned. But to hold, to what one 
cannot get away from, does not appear to me a greater virtue, than 
to let go what one cannot keep. At any rate, it is not a virtue I 
would recommed a friend to make any parade about. In modern 
times " self-evident truths" would not escape observation, if they 
were not held. But in " the times that tried men's" logic, it 
appears that what was self-evident could not be brought to notice 
without considerable pains. However, holding to self-evident 
truths, may yet come in fashion. The march of mind, and "the 
progress of democracy" are so rapid, we may soon expect to reach 
the dark ages. As there is no pervading '• light of knowledge" 
in those ages, every one must be impressed with the importance 
of preserving his own store. Let us conscientiously strive to 
remember, what there is no chance of our forgetting : then when 
we enter into the darkness, if each one will light his icicle, we can 
raise an illumination that will niake the dark ages more brilliant 
than the enlightened ones. 

A knowledge of what is self-evident, is a knowledge in posses- 
sion of those who are ^ddrfesSed, as much as in his who makes the 
addtess. Some parts of ottr present knowledge, we may hereafter 
forget, because our minds are not refreshed with a frequent pre- 
sentation of the objects oY c&u)ses that produce that knowledge. 
Bat what is self-evirfelir is" constantly presented to us; we cannot 
avoid knowing about it; we cannot divest ourselves of this kind 

• Note E. 



9 

of knowledge, without divesting ourselves of the mind itself. The 
inan, who purposing to travel in Egypt, should take a lad with 
him to hold the pyramids while he inspected them, would probably 
come back, with more crude views of those stupendous objects 
than he set out with. The man who proposes to make a statement 
of self-evident truths, certainly, must have such crude notions of 
what is self-evident, that his statement would not be good for any- 
thing: and if lam not mistaken, that point will be made to appear, 
before we have done with this matter. 

Is not the fact, that the author (of this part of the Declaration) 
goes on to state, what he had averred to be " self-evident," satis- 
factory testimony of one or the other of two contingencies, namely, 
that he either did not know what he was talking about, or, he 
must have supposed that those whom he addressed did not know 1 
I admit that it is not absolutely conclusive, because there is one 
other contingency, to wit, that the whole was a mere joke. I 
think, however, the solemnity of the occasion, as well as the im- 
perturbable gravity of the author, precludes us from the latter sup- 
position. To be sure, in matters of jollity, the absurdity of a 
statement is what makes the fun of it. The greater the former, 
the more irresistible the latter. But the authoi* of a witty absur- 
dity, must show his tact by a nice choice of the occasion when it is 
to be uttered, or he himself becomes the subject and not the author 
of the mirth that is made. I cannot therefore indulge the belief, 
that the author of the Declaration was jesting with a nation in so 
trying an emergency, as that which clothed our country in sorrow 
and sack-cloth, on the fourth of July, 1776. Hence we must fall 
back on one or the other of the contingencies, stated at the begin- 
ning of this paragraph. 

But what is it, of which self-evidence is affirmed 1 Why, " that 
all men are created equal." Did the author of this assertion believe 
it true? I think there is more evidence, to show that he disbe- 
lieved his own assertion, than there is to show that the assertion 
is capable of a demonstration. How can we have any belief, upon 
a subject upon which we can have no knowledge ? We may en- 
tertain conjectures, upon subjects where our knowledge is very 
limited ; as for instance, we may conjecture that the planet Jupi- 
ter is inhabited with beings like ourselves : but our present knowl" 
2 



10 

edge is too slender, for any man of sense to assert a belief or dis- 
belief about it, much less to assert that it is self-evident that planet 
is inhabited like our own. Supposing the author had asserted that 
"•he held it to be a self-evident truth," that straight lines were 
crooked 1 How would the absurdity of this statement have dif- 
fered from the one he has made, namely, that he held that to be 
self-evident, which neither he, or any one else can possibly know 
anything about; all which, I think I shall be able to show. But 
as an argument here, would anticipate what might, perhaps, with 
more clearness, be said by and by, I will for the present omit the 
demonstration. 

A self-evident truth, is what no man can avoid knowing. If a 
knowledge of it can be avoided, it ceases to be self-evident. A 
self-evident proposition, is one that invariably carries conviction 
with the mere statement. In mathematics, propositions of this 
nature, are not necessarily ludicrous. But in ethics, this mirth 
mooving quality is unalterably connected with every statement. 

A happy instance illustrating the characteristics of a self-evident 
proposition, occurred on this wise. An aged pedlar, of very grave 
demeanor for that profession, happened into my house, while I 
was sitting at table with my family. He was invited, of course, to 
partake with us. The subject of conversation for that time, waa 
the difference between civilized and savage nations — the superior 
advantages, moral, intellectual and physical of the former, &c. 
The pedlar listened to the conversation with apparent interest, 
when, supposing doubtless, that he ought to minister to us of his 
intellectual things, as we had ministered unto him of our carnal, 
very gravely remarked, "I hold it to be a fact, that the people of 
civilized countries, is more enlightened than savages." The mirth 
of the juvenile part of the company, became audible at this self- 
important effort to add to their knowledge. 

As it is a rule with me never to make fun of a subject, that any 
thing else can be made of; I took occasion to remark, that the 
stranger, apparently with very little effort, had succeeded in sta- 
ting what was self-evident; and in that particular, had surpassed 
the author of the Declaration of Independence, who had made 
great efforts to that end, without the least success. 

I trust it will not be considered an affront, if I suppose some of 



11 

the readers of the Declaration, have as vague notions of what is 
self-evident, as its author had- I would therefore, invite any rea- 
der of these pages, to refresh his own mind with such self-evident 
truths, as in his opinion, will bear a sober statement. If he can 
find any, out of the Declaration, or in it, that will stand that test, 
his search will be attended with better success than I am willing 
to concede to the author of the Declaration himself 

The distinctions between a self-evident truth, and a self-evident 
proposition, I believe I alluded to a few sentences back. As it is 
easier to make a statement of a proposition, than of a truth, I will 
give an example of the former. Black men are more apt to be 
dark colored than white ones ! ! ! If any of my readers should 
succeed in making a statement of a self-evident proposition, that is 
not ludicrous, he will find it to be because it is not self-evident. 
Truths that are not self-evident are the only ones that increase 
knowledge. 

Leaving for the present the absurdity of stating, what in the same 
breath, it is conceded no man can avoid knowing, to the consola- 
tions of its own company; let us see what is the first famous truth 
the author of the Declaration affirms to be self-evident. Why ! 
"that all men are created equal ! !" If the professor of mathe- 
matics in Yale College, should gravely announce to his pupils, the 
following theorem — " I hold this truth to be self-evident — that all 
geometrical figures are exactly similar," he would place his repu- 
tation for veracity and acumen, in the same position I conceive the 
author of the Declaration to occupy. And if his pupils should 
give a gaping credence to his asseverations, I should look also upon 
them, as entitled to the same degree of respect, which the applau- 
ders of these passages in the Declaration deserve. 

Would it be disrespectful to inquire of the author, if living, by 
what authority he made this statement ? For how are we to 
believe him possessed of this extraordinary piece of knowledge, 
when no other man does or can know it without a Special revela- 
tion? If the author had prepared our minds for his marvellous 
statement, by informing us that he held the truth he was about to 
utter, as revealed, then no doubt, we should all be willing to con- 
cede to him, the same measure of respect we invariably pay to a 
Mormon ; but since he entirely neglected so to prepare our minds, 
we cannot think him entitled to that measure of respect. 



12 

The truths which are of vital importance to man, are those 
revealed in the scriptures. A necessity for this revelation, under 
the circumstances of the case, arose from the fact, that those 
truths were not only not self-evident, but they were incapable of a 
demonstration. Doctor Paley, who has brought to the contempla- 
tion of this subject, a degree of clearness and ingenuity rarely 
equalled, has endeavored to show that the being of a God was 
fairly deducible from the ingenuity and evident design of the visi- 
ble creation. I concede to him as a logician, the highest order of 
merit. But I deny that men could come to the conclusion he 
argues for, if their minds had not been previously prepared for 
that conclusion, by the revelation the reasoner affects not to use. 
No man ever has obtained a knowledge of the true God, so far as 
we are informed, unless by revelation. The strange, incoherent 
mythological views of the heathen, are the greatest advance tow- 
ards this knowledge, which man has ever made, unaided by the 
knowledge the scriptures reveal. If doctor Paley had found one 
heathen, who, by searching, had found out God, he would have 
found one fact in support of his logic ; but since he has neither 
found, nor pretended to find a solitary instance like this, his logic 
must fall like the fictions of the heathen to the dust. If for six 
thousand years, the heathen had not discovered his Maker, would 
six thousand more increase the chances of his success, or multiply 
the difficulties in the way of it? Unquestionably the latter. The 
longer man was estranged from his Maker, the more inveterate 
became his blindness. His case had become desperate beyond the 
twinkling of a hope : hence the necessity for a revelation. Our 
Creator would hardly have stooped to reveal what he had endowed 
man with ability to find out. A supposition to the contrary, nul- 
lifies itself. Doctor Paley's logic would stand well enough, if it 
had any thing to stand on. But I find like other sermonizers, I 
have neglected the subject I began Avith. Let us return to that. 

If the statement "all men are created equal," had been found 
among the passages of scripture, which reveal to us the informa- 
tion, "that the day is set Avhen God will judge the world in right- 
eousness, "-^had the statement been invested with the sanctity 
such company would give it ; then indeed should I have yielded 
HJv assent to its truth, not as a matter of reason, but of faith : and 



13 

not then without the reflection that my faith in that particular, waa 
indeed a virtue, as difficult to practise as any other connected 
with self-denial. 

But the passage under consideration is invested with no sanc- 
tity commending it to our faith ; neither does it possess a specious- 
ness that commends it to our reason. It is neither more nor less 
than an uninspired and presumptous asseveration, upon a subject 
that no man can possibly know any thing about. 

We draw our inferences from facts as they exist, or from facta 
as they are presented to us. And what are those facts ? Under 
every conceivable contingency — under circumstances unlimited in 
their dissimilitude and inequality, are men born; under all these 
do they continue to live ; and under them also they die. Whether 
all men are created equal (using the verb in its true and literal 
sense) can be known only to their Creator. And since there is 
no revelation on that point, it is as impossible for man to know 
any thing about it, as it is to beget himself. 

But admitting the word to be used in an expanded or figurative 
sense ; and that the creation alluded to, is to man as he is, or as 
he appears. How are the facts more applicable then ? Still, from 
forms of surpassing beauty, through a long series of gradations to 
the most ofi'ensive deformity — from minds of the purest radiance, 
through like gradations, to those of the obscurity, fog and confu- 
sion of his, whose profitless aphorisms are under review — from the 
extremest verge of M'hat is lovely and desirable, to the limit of all 
that is odious in complexion, condition or circumstance are men 
created. These are facts, as palpable as the continent on which 
we stand. No reasoning, no study, faith or patience can make 
them or unmake them. These are the facts, and there are no 
other. One might as soon reason the Andes from their founda- 
tions, as reason us out of knowledge we cannot avoid possessing. 

What apology then, is there to be found for the man, who, in 
the face of all these facts, and against the convictions of a con- 
science, if he had one, took occasion upon the going forth of a 
solemn public document, to parade the absurd crudity of his 
own "that he held it to be a self-evident truth, that all men were 
created equal ?" What national dignity have we gained for our 
consolation, or what national honor for our comfort, for thus pub- 
lishing to the world in our first and gravest document, this swel- 



14 

ling axiom, as contemptible for its inapplicability, as for its false- 
hood ? Neither the Divine government, nor any human govern- 
ment, with which history or experience have made us acquainted, 
have treated men as created equal, or as being equal ; and for ihe 
best of all reasons. It is an impossibility. The attempt would 
confound all distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, 
useful and useless. The human government that should attempt 
it, would attempt its own nullification. It might as well attempt 
the task of singing the dirge at its own funeral. 

Nevertheless, it is not improper that meu should be contempla- 
ted as equals, and treated as such in several particulars. Courts 
of justice, and gorernments too, may be instituted for this purpose 
among others. It is not, however, their whole duty. It is cer- 
tainly as much a part of that duty, and as an agreeable a function 
of it, to create inequalities between the good and bad, as to level 
them under different circumstances. 

Supposing the author of the Declaration had asserted among his 
self-evident truths, that he held the heavens to be made of brass ! ! 
Certainly there are more appearances at times to justify such 
assertion, than there ever was to justify those he has made. Would 
any man have practised under such a belief? Would any man 
have shaped his conduct to that contingency? And if they did 
not, would not their conduct be satisfactory evidence that they did 
not believe the assertion ? Men have not altered their conduct 
since the marvelous developement " that all men are created 
equal." The author of the statement never shaped his to that 
end. This is as good testimony as can ever be got, that neither 
he, nor any one else, ever practically believed the statement true. 
And it is to be questioned, whether theoretically, the author, or 
any other, ever gave credence to it. For it is quite difficult for 
me to conceive how a man can have a belief, upon a subject, upon 
which he can have no knowledge. That difficulty, I apprehend, 
is irremoveable. If the assertion had been, that all men are crea- 
ted unequal, we might with some propriety have put credence in 
it ; because a great multitude of analogies lead to that supposition. 
We have what amounts to some knowledge on that point. But 
when the assertion is, " that all men are created equal," we pos- 
sess no fact, circumstance, analogy or revelation, that touches the 



15 

subject; consequently we can have no knowledge, and of course, 
no belief. The author of this statement could have had no belief 
in its truth, because he possessed no knowledge in the premises, 
that is not common to us. There is no possible apology for his 
making it, but lunacy. 

I cannot but think the friends of a greater extension of privili- 
ges and franchises, do miss their aim, and squander their energy 
of argument, by quotations or settings-forth of the assertion, " all 
men are created equal." No man believes, or can believe it. It 
therefore possesses no force but to weaken the positions and argu- 
ments connected with it. 

Because men, so far as we can draw any conclusion from facts, 
are created unequal ; it by no means follows, that the abomina- 
tions of slavery are of course to be justified, or the system itself to 
be tolerated. Whether those abominations arise from the system 
or from the cruel disposition of fallen man, is a question perhaps, 
yet to be settled. If the evils come from the system, there is hope 
of their cure, either by an araendation of the plan, or by its abro- 
gation. But if they arise from the depraved nature of man, they 
will continue, irrespective of the " peculiar institution." 

There is no remedy in that case, but a divine one. Men with 
cruel hearts, will find ways to wrong and abuse each other, sys- 
tem or no system. 

It may not be amiss here to inquire, under what contingencies, 
equality can be predicated of man; and if possible, to find some 
shadow of apology for that startling paradox, which is under 
review. Can it be alledged on this behalf that all men are equally 
created to die 1 So are brutes. And if any thing is gained by 
our assent to that, it enures to the advantage of the brute, and not 
to the author of the Declaration ; for if that constituted equahty, 
the brute might have been comprehended in the dispensation, and 
the self-evident truth would have stood then — '< all men and brutes 
are created equal." But is it even so, that all men are created to 
die ? All that have passed away from the land of the living, so far 
as our knowledge extends, except two, have died. But what rea- 
son, aside from that derived from analogy or revelation, is there to 
lead us to the belief, that all those now living were created to 
die ? Some of the modern prophets, at least, have been looking 



16 

to escape that contingency. At any rate, it is not self-evident that 
all men were created to die ; neither is it demonstrable at present 
one way or the other. 

Supposing the apology to be, that all men are created equally 
responsible to their Creator. Very well. Does verisimilitude of 
condition, in a single particular constitute equality in all ? That 
all men are responsible to God, as a point of faith, we believe. 
That they are equally responsible, is a point to be proved. What 
knowledge we can get on the subject, leads to the belief that the 
responsibility is unequal ; and because the man with one talent was 
held to a different account from the man with ten ; we reasonably 
infer that it was because there was a difference between them. 
Men ought to do their duty, both to their neighbor and their Crea- 
tor ; but there has ever been an immense dissimilitude in their 
methods of discharging that obligation. 

Suppose the apology to lie in the authority of scripture, " God 
hath mn'le of one blood all the nations for to dwell on the face of 
the earth," — if I quote right. What does this amount to; but to 
say their blood, all of them, is that of man, not of bulls or goats. 
The prophet Ezekiel, notwithstanding this knowledge, contem- 
plated a very great dissimilitude among men ; for in speaking of 
the Assyrians whom he hated, "all of them desirable young men, 
clothed in scarlet and riding on horses ;" nevertheless said he, 
"their flesh is as the flesh of horses, and their issue as the issue of 
asses." Doubtless he would make just the same reflection on the 
Southern chivalry, could he see a specimen. Be that as it may, 
if I possessed the ability to sneer with such unadulterated scorn 
as that, I would set up nights to exercise my faculty. 

Doubtless in some vague and unprofitable manner, equality may 
be predicated of men ; but in no sense or shape, as I conceive, can 
it so be done, as to divest the sentence under review of its treach- 
erous absurdity. Against our knowledge, innate, acquired, or 
revealed — against the instinct and impulses of every son of Adam, 
is the assertion, " all men are created equal." The powers of no 
individual, nor of any combination of them, with all the advanta- 
ges to boot of genius, and the fii t order of physical endowment, 
can produce one solitary example of perfect equality. Even in 
the instance of twins, one must be born before the other, conse- 



17 

quently an inequality of age follows ; to say notliing of the diverse 
and ever varying contingencies occurring to man in despite of the 
most careful safeguards. 

In conclusion of my remarks on this part of the subject, there is 
one point of negative testimony, which I admit, so far as it goes, 
favors the supposition, that the declaration under review is self- 
evident. It is this. What is self-evident, cannot be shown to be 
Irue, by demonstration clearer than itself. I allow therefore, the 
expression "all men are created equal," to be self-evident, if evi- 
dent at all; for it is clearly incapable of any proof whatever. 

The second truth affirmed to be self-evident is expressed thus — 
" that they (i. e. all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty and the pur- 
suit of happiness." 

To alien, is to dispose of, part with, put away. What is unal- 
ienable, is what cannot be disposed of, parted with, or put away, 
either by the possessor, or by any one else : for if it can, it ceases 
to be unalienable. Life is affirmed to be one of these possessions. 
If it were true that no man could alienate (dispose of) his own 
life or any one's else, it would prove an immense comfort to brag- 
garts. They could parade their patriotism and bravery without 
serious risk. Wars too, would cease to be attended with those 
losses, which have hitherto been accounted their chief terror. For 
myself I had supposed that life Avas alienable : and I apprehend 
the author of the \ery sentence under remark, thought so ; for 
before he closes this famous declaration, he pledges his "life," 
among other things. To pledge what one cannot dispose of, 
amounts to no higher virtue, than to give away what one does not 
own. If life were unalienable, the pledge so sonorously paraded 
at the close of the Declaration, would be as worthless as a Virginia 
abstraction, or an abstract Virginian. 

Moreover, if life is unalienable, there can be no more evidence 
of true patriotism. No man can part with his, for the good of 
his country. The Declaration that contains the self-evident truth 
that life was unalienable, was published the 4th July, 1776. The 
battle of Bunker Hill, where Warren, and many brave warriors 
had alienated their lives for the benefit of their country, had taken 
place in June, of the previous year. Montgomery also, with hia 
3 



13 

companions in glory, had the same year alienated their lives under 
the ramparts of Quebec, for the same purpose. The patriots, like- 
^visc, wlio were slain at Lexington, liad done the same thing. 
They sleep in their graves, each one with the sweet hope of immor- 
tal joy for his bed-fdluw ; and when they awake, they will find that 
their smiling companion had awoke before them. 

It seems fortunate for the posthumous fame of these glorious old 
warriors, that they effected this impossible alienatinn, and secured 
their renown, a little before the self-evident truth made it evident 
they could do no such thing. 

To pretend a distinction between the rigid to life, and life itself, 
is but making darkness visible. The alienation of life, under cer- 
tain circumstances, has ever been considered one of the most 
exalted actions a human being is capable of performing. The 
alienation efiecled on mount calvary, has attracted the admi- 
ration of h.alf mankind, for more than eighteen hundred years. 
Every battle field, from IMarathon to Saratoga ; every page of 
history, every day's experience, furnish us with but too much, 
and too lam(;ntable testimony, that life is alienable. The assertion 
therefore tliat life is an unalienable endowment, is not only not 
self-evident, but is a specimen of sophistry unsupported by any 
known fact, and incaj-able of the shadow of proof. 

It is indeed not improper to suppose, that our first parent, when 
he came; from the forming hand of his Creator, was endowed with 
nn unalienable right to life. But he, with that perverseness, com- 
mon to all his race, succeeded in alienating the aft'ections of his 
IMaker. As a just retribution for his perversity, the glorious endow- 
ment of a right to life, was taken away from him, and the endow- 
ment of a right to die substituted in its place. This endowment, 
has clave to his posterity with an unalienability that has never 
been broken, though every device that the ingenuity of man could 
invent, has been tried to cfiect that alienation. 

If the author of the Declaration had asserted, that all men were 
endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to die, he 
would have come as much nearer the fact, than he has, by all the 
distance there is between falsehood and truth. 

The second item with which we are endowed by our Creator, 



19 

and which is affirmed to be " unalienable," is liberty, or if you pre- 
fer it, the right to liberty. A person may have a right to lands, 
and yet not be in possession. The right maybe worth something 
without the possession. As I but brieHy intimated, a few ])assa- 
ges back, that a distinction supposed, between a riiiht to life and 
life itself, was only making the obscurity greater, or words to tliat 
effect: it may not occur to all my readers, that that expression 
was any thing more than a mere dixit of mine. To prevent such 
a sequence I will be more particular. 

To be endowed with a right to live, and yet at the same time 
can not live — that is to say, a right to life, and yet not in posses- 
sion — is not an endowment of any practical value. An abstract 
right to life, which some one has taken away from us is worth less 
than the carcass of a deail cat. The Creator, I apj)rel;end, has 
higher occupation than making such endowments. Moreover, the 
right to live, would seem to conflict very much witli tlie right to 
die. I doubt whether the two rights can coaxist. That we have 
the latter, is made evident by testimony as magnificent in quantity, 
as it is melancholy in detail. The truth is, the right to life is in 
the possession. It is inseparable. If it were; if a man had a 
right to life after he had been dispossessed; I know of no process 
he could institute for its recovery. Where would he stand, while 
he vindicated his right? What court could he get to entertain 
his cause, except that of Radamanthus 1 Ordinary dead men, in 
such an emergency would want the aid of a live lawyer. Could 
they find one to go before the courts in the next world, to vindi- 
cate a dead man's right to life ? But supposing he should recover 
judgment by default ; what sheriff would bring him back to this 
world, and put him in possession of his lost property? 

To be sure, man has a self-evident right to life while he lives. 
I do not dispute that. But it would take an immense amount of 
sophistry to prove his right to it after that time ; or that the right 
was worth any thing if it could be proved. I think therefore it 
has been shown that the right to life and life, are one and insepix- 
rable ; consequently the expression, "unalienable right to life" 
amounts to nothing more than "unalienable life" — the word 
"rights" adding no appreciable idea to the expression, or being 
of any practical use, except iu sound — sound signifying nothing. 



20 

We come now to an examination of the expression "right to 
libert}'." It is true in this case, the right, under certain circum- 
stances, may be worth something without the possession : and in 
that particular the word as apphcable to " hberty," has some 
meaning, but as apphcable to "life" none; and herein in part 
consists the cheat of tlie sophistry under review. The right to 
liljerty, in a given case, may be valuable just in proportion to the 
chances of obtaining actual possession. But an abstract right to 
what one has not got, and what there is no probability of his 
getting, seems v/ortii no more than a right to be disappointed. 
To suppose our Creator makes endowments of that sort, is a pre- 
sumption I would not like to answer for. "All men" includes 
black men ! ! Perhaps the reader ought to be informed that the 
above, is a self-evident truth ; otherwise he might possibly doubt 
its verity. The value then, of this right to liberty, which a South 
Carolina slave is endowed with, (if all men are,) may be calculated 
more easily than a nullifier can calculate the value of the Union. 
The value of this right, to the poor slave, according to my mathe- 
matics, is just the value nullification adds to that Union. The 
truth is, the value of the right, without the possession, exists only in 
theory, not in fact. To he endowed with a right to think, without 
being endowed with any mind to think with, vt'ould be just such 
another endowment — just such an one as the author of the Dec- 
laration must have contemplated, if he had any distinct idea of 
the subject. To this complexion it must come at last. 

The point to be proved then was this, that the right to hberty, 
though nominally appreciable as a thing s eparate from the posses- 
sion, is not in ninety-nine cases in a hundred, worth more than 
the right to life without the possession. To all practical intents 
and useful purposes, the word "rights" as connected with liberty, 
may be dropped from the text, and the idea will in fact be as little 
impaired, as 1 have shown it would be by omitting it before the 
word "life." The whole idea there was to be communicated, so 
far as life and liberty are concerned, might have been expressed 
without the word " rights" and would have stood thus — "endow- 
ed by their Creator with unalienable life, liberty," &,c. If my 
reasoning on this subject has not been fair, I should not know 
how to appreciate that which was. 



21 

All men endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to 
liberty ! ! ! When did this wonderful endowment take place ? 
The endowment of a right to liberty, without any endowment of 
means to obtain possession, one would think was rather a cheap 
affair, considering the source from whence it is said to come. 
Besides, how is the right to be proved without the possession ? 
Doubtless every man has a natural right to liberty, who is able to 
maintain possession; just as he has a natural right to life, so long 
as he lives. The proof of the right before one has got possession, 
would be just as difficult in the one case as in the other. The 
right to a farm at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, may be set 
up, by such men as have a " clear and unquestionable right" to 
Oregon. But if it was asserted that our Creator had endowed us 
with a right to a farm at the deep bottom of that tempestuous sea, 
sane men would probably consider first, whether they were en- 
dowed with means to get there ; if no proof of the second endow- 
ment were to be had, I am inclined to the opinion, prudent folks 
would doubt whether the title was genuine — whether it Avas good 
enough to justify an attempt to take possession. 

The slaves of our country are in precisely the same predicament 
with regard to their alledged right to liberty, as we are in, 
touching a farm under the waves of the Atlantic — certain death 
attends all attempts, or most attempts to take possession. Where 
is the pro*)/ of their right? and if none, what is the value of their 
title? I may assert a right to a farm. When I go to my counsel 
for assistance, he very properly inquires on what proofs my pre- 
tensions are founded. "Are you in possession ?" No. "Have 
you ever been in possession?" No. "Where is your deed ?" 
Hav'nt got any. " It is devised to you then ?" I've no writings 
of any kind whatever. "If you have no proof of your right, how 
can you pretend to have a right?" W'hy, I am pretending. 
" Oh ho, then your right is a pretence is it : you may pretend 
possession and that will end the matter." But pretending pos- 
session will not put me in possession. "To be sure not, neither 
will pretending to a right give you one." 

I think I have been explicit enough to show, that rights to things 
one has not got, and cannot get ; are just equal to no rights at 
all. The magnificent parade in the Declaration, of *' unalienabla 



89 

rights to life and liberty therefore, are but a rhetorical cheat — a 
fiction of the sophist's brain. The word "rights" in its juxtaposi- 
tion to life and liberty, communicating no appreciable idea; is 
but darkening counsel by words without knowledge. I cannot 
but reiterate, what I have I believe expressed before, that the 
friends of emancipation do fritter awny their logic, by settings 
forth of these crude incomprehensible fictions. They communi- 
cate no idea, and possess no force but to puzzle. The right to 
liberty must be proved by possession, or by human endowments; 
otherwise it becomes as valueless as an abstract right to a tin 
whistle, which the owner is not permitted to blow ; no nor to look 
at; and which upon further search is after all not to be found any 
where. The consolations such a right as this must give, are all 
the consolation which the poor slave has. To console him with a 
statement of them, is but a mockery and an aggravation. 

The third item with which we are endowed, and which is affirmed 
to possess the same fixed attributes as the others, is the ^^ right to 
the pursuit of happiness! !" The idea, if there was one attached 
to this expression, is too remote and vague for criticism. The 
attempt to weigli an abstraction in scales, or moonshine in a 
balance, would require the same manipulations as an attempt to 
calculate the value of an idea which its author could not express. 
The most favorable construction I can put upon it is, that no idea 
was meant to be communicated. The passage was particularly 
designed for southern ears ; tlierefore sound, not sense, was 
required. It was more euphonious to terminate the clause with 
these sounds, than to stop where the idea stopped ; hence they 
were added. 

A sarcastic Frenchman once said, "the chief use of language 
is to conceal ideas." That was not the chief use of it in the 
case before us; for it does not appear there was any idea to 
conceal. Pursuit of happiness ! ! Rig/it to the pursuit of happi- 
ness ! ! ! The same logic, which I am sure made it satisfactory to 
the reader, that the right to life must coexist with the possession 
— that they are one and inseparable — is applicable in the present 
case. To be endowed with an abstract right to tiie pursuit of 
happiness, and yet endowed with no ability to pursue, is in all 
respects as barren a privilege as the right to life when one is not 



23 

In possession. As dead men tell no tales, I do not know how wo 
are to get any witnesses of a man's right to life after he is dispos- 
sessed ; so the right to the pursuit of happiness, must be proved 
by the pursuit, if proved at all. The right, and the possession, 
must be contemplated as one, if indeed it is a subject concrete 
enough for contemplation. I shall so treat it from obvious 
necessity. 

Some men's pursuit of happiness consists in picking our pock- 
ets ; others in taking our lives ; a tliird makes his pursuit of hap- 
piness consist in getting the two first convicted of their pursuits; 
and in getting them alienated of their unalienable rights to liberty 
and life. Success in the latter pursuit is quite after my notion of 
what ought to take place. But these antagonist and ever conflict- 
ing rights ! ! Are tlicy divine endowments? Rigiits ! nullifying 
and devouring each other!!! The rights of the Kilkenny cats 
to fight till there was nothing left but their tails, were just such 
rights. 

Such, Oh Progressive Democracy ! is the length and the breadth, 
the weight, the superfices, substance and sum-total of the sound- 
ing sophistry in this part of the Declaration of Independence. 
If in our first and most solemn public document we parade such 
stuff as this — if we quote it, utter it, land it, is it to be wondered 
at, that other nations should scoff at our pretensions, and mock 
when our vain-glory cometh? Our patriotic nation seems deter- 
mined to have a magnificent opinion of itself, at all hazards and 
in despite every obstacle. No amount of folly in our state papers, 
or of nonsense in our public speeches and diplomacy, is adequate 
to alter that opinion. But what views of our sense or sanity, is 
all this ostentatious setting forth of unintelligible aphorisms and 
inappreciable generalities, calculated to create in our cotempo- 
raries ? Oh that we were endowed with an unalienable disposition 
to divest ourselves of vanity and lies. I would give more for such 
an endowment, than fur all the abstract rights this side the moon. 

The third self-evident truth asserted, is expressed thus — "that 
to secure these rights" (meaning those we have just been contem- 
plating) "governments are instituted among men, deriving their 
just powers from the consent of the governed," «fec. Rights 1 
with which we are endowed by our Creator, and in a manner 



24 

withal, that makes them self-evidently unalienable, a sane man 
would suppose, were about as secure as any thing could well be 
made on this side the grave. Who would want a human govern- 
ment, to secure, what in the same breath is alledged, a Divine one 
had secured, so as make the loss of it self-evidentlj impossible 1 

Had the writer of the Declaration believed his two first self-evi- 
dent truths ! he could not avoid knowing that there was no possible 
use for his third one. Rights, possessing the remarkable charac- 
teristics affirmed of these, must be objects as fixed as the sun. 
That luminary does not abide in its place, by any stronger secu- 
rity, than an "unalienable" endowment of its Creator. Conse-. 
quently there is no more need of a human government to secure 
what is unalienable in us, than there is to secure what is unalien- 
able in the sun. The pyramid of Cheops is not endowed with 
an unalienable privilege of existence, so far as we know, and is 
therefore indefinitely more transitory than the rights spoken of; 
nevertheless I apprehend, three or even four self-evident flourishes 
of rhetoric, would not add enough to its stability to pay for the 
breath that uttered them. The earth likewise on which we stand, 
is not fixed in its sphere with the irremovability affirmed of these 
rights. It is therefore more liable to drop from beneath our feet, 
than our unalienable rights are, to slip from our possession. If 
that contingency should occur, and leave this amazing nation to 
get along as well as it could without it, the government would not 
probably find it out ; for it appears that as yet it has never been 
able to discover what was "self-evident! !" A government insti- 
tuted to secure the earth from dropping away from us, would not 
have a more laborious vocation, than one instituted to secure us 
in rights that could not possibly be taken away. In fine, a gov- 
ernment instituted to secure us in a knowledge of what was self- 
evident ; would have the same marvelous employment, as one 
instituted to secure us in rights that are unalienable. 

The most astonishing thing about these passages of the Decla- 
ration is, that such an inmiense quantity of nonsense could be got 
into so small a compass. If a man could tell a thousand false- 
hoods at a breath, I confess, it would be some apology for lying, 
if there can be any. A similar apology must be made for the 
sentence under remark, if the case admits of one. The htter of 



25 

lies that spring from this passage, multiply themselves like the 
plague of Popish saints. There is more than one for every day 
in the year. I am as much astonished in the contemplation as 
any of my readers can be. When I commenced this examination 
I did not propose to myself more than p, short article. But the 
subject has so grown that I do not feel but half through with it 
yet. However I will be as brief as the nature of the case admits. 
The last clause of the passage quoted we have not yet inspected, 
namely — "deriving their just powers from the consent of the 
governed." The government that is instituted to secure me in 
rights that are unalienable, derives no just powers from my con- 
sent. If it should undertake the experiment, I should say — thank 
you ; you need not trouble yourself; 1 apprehend I shall be able 
to keep, what cannot be taken away from me. Besides it is as 
much as can be expected of you, to bring to light, what is self- 
evident. 

My conviction increases as I proceed in the examination of this 
document, that its author had no distinct ideas on the subject he 
was writing about; or if he had, he possessed no faith in the truth 
of his own assertions. Certainly I have no disposition to under- 
value any thing connected with the credit or renown of our coun- 
try ; but would rather pertinaciously insist upon every thing con- 
nected therewith as great and good, if I thought I could possibly 
maintain such a position. But in the face of this filial affection 
I must say, a more crude and profitless jumble of words, than fills 
the passages in the fore part of the Declaration, is no where to be 
found in any State document north of Mason and Dixon's line. 

The first and most fatal mistake of its author, as I conceive, 
lay in his attempt to make truths. As if the truth was sometliing 
that could be made. The first prerequisite and vital quality of 
truth, is, that it is something which exists. Men may tell it, or 
neglect to tell it. But the attempt to make it, is evidence, that 
-what they purposed to make, did not exist; consequently it could 
not be the truth. Visionaries like the author under review, and 
most persons of some learning without any thorough discipline of 
mind, are very fond of these attempts to makp. important truths. 
They succeed in making a statement. Afterwards on looking 
round for facts in its support, finding none, nevertheless its author 
4 



26 

never seems to alter his opinions of its value. [Let them find the 
facts, or make them, who are interested in having it true.] The 
value of a statement consists in its truth : unless the design was 
to deceive. In that case its value is a minus quantity to all who 
are deceived. 

The question may be put to me here, with as much force per- 
haps as in any o*her place — if this document is the miserable 
specimen of sophistry you suppose, how comes it to pass, that 
such men as Franklin, Roger Sherman and other northern men 
of unquestionable acumen — how comes it they should have put 
their signatures to it? For the same reason that made them 
adopt the constitution — a strong imperious necessity. A necessity 
vehement and inappeasable, demanded of them the adoption of 
some constitution of government. The same necessity narrowed 
their choice to the one they did adopt or none. It was the 
best of two alternatives, notwithstanding its great and almost 
fatal blemishes. So with regard to the Declaration — the blood 
at Lexington had been spilt, Warren and his companions had 
fallen at Bunker Hill, Montgomery at Quebec — it was a time of 
trouble, when every face gathered blackness, and every town felt 
distresses daily. The full time was come when the leaders must 
declare what they purposed to do ; and so pressing was the emer- 
gency, as to narrow their. choice to the Declaration as it stands or 
none. They signed it notwithstanding its defects, and in so doing 
did as I myself would have done. 

But the signers had some apology for this act, besides the rigor- 
ous necessity that pressed them. There was some excellent things 
about it, as I trust it is yet possible to show. It is not the taste 
or the genius of the signers that I impugn. Their part in it was 
what emergent circumstances compelled. An apology for them 
is manifest ; not so with the writer. His part in the premises 
was the work of the closet — of premeditation and preparation. 
He therefore is not entitled to any indulgence for the crude non- 
sense it exhibits. 

If the question occurs to any one, how the same tree bringeth 
forth good fruit and evil fruit ? my response will be simply because 
there are two trees. The composition is evidently the production 
of two minds. Upon a close and critical " examination of this 



27 

instrument — the style of its ideas and expressions, I have come 
to a settled conviction on that point. The same amount of testi- 
mony necessary to convince me, that the whitest children of our 
country are the offspring of the blackest inhabitants, would be 
required to prove to my satisfaction, that the clear straight for- 
ward statements in the body of the document, were the produc- 
tion of the same mind as the verbiage that precedes them. The 
difference in solidity between ramparts of stone, and the mists of 
the morning, is but a trifle more conspicuous, than the difference 
between the thoughts to be expressed and the mode of expressing 
them, observable in the two parts of this production. The clear, 
strong-minded and honest man, when he has any thing to declare, 
takes the method which becomes conspicuous in the document, 
where it says " The history of the present King of Great Britain, 
is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations," <fec. — the man 
whose mind is forty-nine parts fog, and fifty-one self-conceit will 
invariably employ the style, mystification and pompous nonsense 
of the passages we have been reviewing. 

Moreover, from many analogies I am inclined to the opinion, 
that one of these minds had been invigorated by the discipline of 
a higher latitude ; the other enervated by the lassitude of a lower 
— one from the land of facts and truth, the other from the land of 
abstractions and vain philosophy. The mind of the higher lati- 
tude begins to manifest itself in the Declaration, as soon as we 
begin to find any truth in it, or any appreciable idea. The sen- 
tences in the second paragraph, following those I have commented 
on, are intelligible. I think it reasonable to suppose therefore, that 
no southern mind produced them. This intelligibility increases 
apace till the composition comes to the recital of facts, when 
that intelligibihty is complete. We come now to statements that 
carry conviction with them — to ideas that cannot be misunder- 
stood and facts that no man can dispute. Not only what truth or 
honesty there is in its Declaration; but all the strength, beauty 
and value lie in this plain, unambitious narrative. 

"See how a plain tale will put you down," says a fine writer. 
He, and' those who heard him knowing well, that the force of 
language consisted in the force of the facts recited ; and sublimity 
in the brevity wherewith the truth is set forth. 



28 

On reading the Declaration, my interest continues unabated 
from the beginning of the recital of facts, through all that part of 
it which was evidently the production of a northern mind. At 
the last paragraph but one, that interest rises to excitement. I 
venture the opinion, that a specimen of more touching pathos 
than is there set forth, is not to be found in any State paper, of 
this country or of any other. That, is the way in which a strong- 
minded man speaks, when he feels himself wronged, and his pur- 
pose has become fixed to redress that wrong. 

We see no more of the soft latitude in this production until we 
come to the concluding clause of the last sentence : there it bursts 
forth again with its " peculiar" rhetoric and unmistakable char- 
acteristics. 

As the passage is often quoted — as it is more frequently in the 
mouths of the mock orators and quack patriots than any other, 
we will subject it to the same considerate and fair criticism, we 
have applied to its cognate and fellow passages in the first part of 
the document. I will quote so much of it here as I purpose to in- 
spect. — " We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, 
and our sacred honor." ! ! If this is not bathos, what is ? If here 
is not a specimen of anti-climax, in the place of a supposed sub- 
lime asserveration — laughable but from our respect to the circum- 
stances, where can we find one ? If after a man had pledged 
his fortune, he should propose to increase the security by pledg- 
ing his movable estate, we should hardly think him sane enough 
to make any pledge at all. "All that a man hath will he give for 
his life" saith a far wiser writer than the one we are reviewing. 
Life is by so much the most valuable of all our possessions, that 
in its common meaning, it is used as comprehending every thing 
else that belongs to us. Life, in the sense in which it is used in the 
passage before us, is not confined to mere animal vitality ; it com- 
prehends all that goes to make up the man. It includes his qual- 
ities of soul, as much as it does the blood in his veins. But if we 
take the passage as it stands, we must conclude that when they 
pledged their lives, they made a reservation of honor; as if that 
attribute was something which did not necessarily belong to their 
lives : for afterwards, as if upon second thought, they pledge 
that too. 



29 

If a man had honestly pledged his life, we should feel satisfied 
that he could not increase the security; knowing full well, that 
all that he had he would give to redeem his pledge, if that redemp- 
tion could be effected without the final and more costly sacrifice. 
To pledge their fortunes, after they had pledged their lives, is in 
fact, either pledging what was already disposed of, or pledging 
what could not be disposed of, if the first pledge was exacted. 
None but the men of " soft latitudes," would undertake the 
gratuity of disposing of their fortunes, after their lives were dis- 
posed of. 

But the sounding brass, so sonorous in chivalric ears, and for 
which they will at all times and every where sacrifice sense or 
sentiment, is "sacred honor"! ! Why the chivalry should account 
their honor sacred, I could never conjecture, unless it was because 
they have but little. People are apt to be chary of what is scarce. 
Perhaps however we judge them harshly ; and they only make a 
great parade of this virtue because they have no other. We have 
no certain means of knowing but what the chivalry would canon- 
ize modesty, if they knew what it was. But it is not to be 
expected, that men can appreciate what they cannot comprehend. 

How is sacred honor better than honor? And by how much is 
a pagan virtue superior to a christian one? Piety is a^virtue, if 
faith is. If we should hear of a man parading and boasting of 
his sacred piety ! we might, I apprehend, with some propriety 
conclude, he really had none at all to boast about ; and I venture 
the opinion that when we hear men boasting of their sacred honor, 
we may come to a similar conclusion with similar propriety. 

Honor is nothing more than a virtue; modesty nothing less. 
Why one should be accounted sacred, the other not, must be 
demonstrated by southern causistry if demonstrated at all. 
Chastity is generally accounted a virtue north of Mason and 
Dixon's line. If it has not hitherto endured the climate south of 
that line, is it so much the fault of the virtue, as the fault of the 
cultivators ? On the supposition however that this virtue might 
be cultivated as an exotic, it is doubtful whether the chivalry 
would account it "sacred." 

If the chivalrous south pledged their honor because it was 
sacred ; they must have kept it secreted because it <Vas pledged : 



30 

we have never seen any thing of it from that day to this. But 
the fact that they account their honor " sacred," in some measure 
accounts for their deifying themselves. For is it but fair that 
beinn-s who found they possessed one sacred attribute, should 
thereupon presume they were entitled to a post among the " Dii 
minores gentium." But self-sanctification and self-deification do 
not appear sufficient to satisfy the generous cravings of the chiv- 
alry. The Dii minores gentium stoop from their celestial tripods 
to appropriate terrestrial virtues. They call themselves the "gen- 
erous south." It is not much to be wondered at, that they should 
covet the virtue of generosity. For it would be a very easy one 
for those to practise who never pay their debts. 

But the chivalry can afford to be generous in the matter of 
pledges if in nothing else. They can pledge their hves, because 
understanding them to be " unalienable," there is of course no 
risk. It is cheaper to do any thing else with them, than to lead 
them. They can pledge their fortunes with similar safety, for 
these are for the most part desperate, and are as well got rid of 
as kept. And lastly, they may pledge their " sacred honor" from 
Maine to California, and from independence to doomsday, with- 
out a shadow of risk ; for no man will ever take it who knows 
what it is. 

The expression " our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor," 
I cannot but contemplate as verbiage of the poorest sort. Noth- 
ing is added to the idea after the word "lives." Had the 
sentence of which we have quoted a part, been written thus 
— " and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance 
on the protection of Divine providence, we mutually pledge to each 
other our lives" it would have expressed all the meaning it does 
as it stands. But sound ! ! sound ! ! the Jupiter-tonans and the 
ding-dong it would not have had. These, to chivalric ears, are 
of more consequence than sense ; therefore those insipid and 
profitless appendages are affixed to a sentence, which but for 
them would have been sublime. 

Men in the strong agonies of death, make no parade of rhetoric, 
And in the trying emergencies of hfe, pubhc or private, when 
the strain of rigorous necessity brings us to as straight a condition ; 
a brevity as rigid as the condition we are in, is the first, last, and 



31 

sole characteristic of our speech. In the emergency which con- 
strained our leading men at the time of the Declaration, we should 
suppose they would have pledged all they had to pledge at once ; 
and so they would undoubtedly have done, if left to the prompt- 
ings of their own good sense ; but the document makes them 
dribble out the items they propose to pledge one by one ; and the 
mind in contemplating the worth of the separate parts, loses sight 
of the value of the whole. 

As a general remark, it may as well be observed here as else- 
where, that after the first paragraph was uttered, a decent respect 
to common sense required, that the declarers should immediately 
proceed to a statement of particular facts, in support of the gener- 
alities already advanced. But when we expect the fish, in this 
case, we get the serpent, as we most commonly do when we 
expect good from a low latitude. So far from a statement of facts 
or declaration of causes, the author goes into a setting-forth of 
strange and crude generalities ; the contradiction of one part 
thereof to an other, ecpialled only by the absurdity of the whole. 
For how can a man exercise his supposed right to the pursuit of 
happiness, unless he does as he is a mind to do ? The business 
of a good government is to prevent this pursuit, not secure it. 
But according to the logic of the Declaration, governments are 
instituted to secure all men in the divine right of doing just what 
they please. 

It is to be regretted that a document, calculated from the cir- 
cumstances under which it was published, to become known far 
and long among the nations of the earth, should have gone forth 
with the unalienable blemishes our Declaration evidently has. 
But we console ourselves, as no doubt the northern signers of it 
did, with the unction, that there are many excellent things in it, 
and if there were not, there is no help for it now. We must face 
the scorn these crudities and this sophistry is calculated to pro- 
cure. I should suppose foreigners would have laughed us out of 
every checker of longitude on the globe, for all this ostentatious 
parade of folly ; and the fact they have not, is evidence that we 
have been treated with a forbearance we did not deserve. But 
perhaps our folly in other particulars has been so great, as 



82 

wholly to occupy the foreign wits, and we have escaped ridicule 
for this, only because there was not time to bestow it. 

As I remarked before, I can well excuse the signers. When 
the fire begins to take hold of men, and the flames to be sucked 
in their nostrils; I understand the emergency is too rigorous for 
them to attend to the duties of the toilet, and to the annointing of 
themselves with oil. The signers could have had no time to lop 
the excresences from the document, unless a stroke of the sword 
would have done it. Yet when these men, yea and the genius of 
our struggling country, felt the strain of a pressure as vehement 
as that instanced above — when the blood extravasate was spouting 
from its arteries ; the spectacle is presented by the author of 
the Declaration, of one attempting to amuse their minds with a 
setting forth of sophisms, and their ears with the soundings of 
sonorous brass. 

How can we complain of "outside barbarians" for lightly 
esteeming our literature, and scoffing at our pretensions, when 
we present to them in our first and gravest document, these 
specimens of unmitigated nonsense 1 As there is risk that such, 
expressions as the one just uttered, may be taken for mere vitu- 
peration, let us refer again to the logic or the want of logic, on 
which it is founded. In speaking of the unalienable right to life, 
our Creator was said to have endowed us with, I believe I put 
the question, "when was this marvelous endowment made?" 
I may here with propriety propound an other. For how long is 
the guarantee of this unalienable endowment to run? Does it 
extend to any definite period beyond death ? And if so, when 
or where shall we make our vindication? If not, then the unal- 
ienable endowment amounts to this and no more, that we have a 
right to life while we live ! ! This is the "self-evident" truth we 
all knew just as well before the statement as now. If this truth 
was a part of our knowledge, it was in our possession. If it was 
in our possession, it was our own. The cheat then, is in selling 
us information we were possessed of before ; and in making us 
buy what was our own. The price we pay is in the time and 
trouble w'C expend in the detection. An old story runs to this 
effect. An expert jockey took the horse of an old man ; and 
having singed it and otherwise dipt and fixed it over, so as for 



33 

the occasion to conceal its identity, subsequently sold it to its 
owner for a price. We are in the same fix as the poor old man ; 
for the sophist has taken our previous knowledge, namely, that we 
were divinely endowed with a right to life just so long as we could 
manage to live, and no longer ; and having singed it and other- 
wise fixed it over into a "self-evident truth" so as for the occa- 
sion to conceal its identity, he makes us buy it back again. The 
measure of my respect for the jockey, considerably exceeds my 
respect for the sophist : for the former did understand his game, 
but the latter was too infatuate to see the cheat. It evidently ap- 
pears from liis imperturbable gravity, that it never occurred to 
him that he communicated no knowledge — he never mistrusted that 
the right to life consisted in the possession, and was to be proved 
by it, if proved at all — that the right to the pursuit of happiness, 
was to be proved by the pursuit if capable of proof; and so in all 
practical purposes as to the right to liberty. 

A sentence or two upon "rights" may not be amiss. I conceive 
the author, and all readers of the Declaration who have tried to 
give credence to these passages, to be deceived by the supposi- 
tion that the word '^'ights" could carry the same meaning when 
applied to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as when ap- 
plied as a substitute for " title" to lands or houses. If I am ousted 
of possession of my house, I prove my right by certain human 
endowments. I set up a human right, not a divine one. If I 
should set up a divine right, namely a right founded on an endow- 
ment of my Creator, I know of no way to prove the correctness 
of my title, but to dig up a Mormon New Testament with tiie 
revelation of my right set forth : unless I go before the court 
where the record is kept, to wit, on the other side of the grave. 
At all events, I could get no better testimony, in this world, than 
a Mormon revelation.* 

The word " rights," as the author of the Declaration and others 
like him use it, communicates a fiction, not a fact. Our knowl- 
edge cannot be increased by such a use of the word ; it brings no 
additional idea, to speak of a right to life, more than to speak of 
a right to a right. Such an arrangement of words possesses no 

♦ Note D. 



34 

power but to deceive. It cheats — tliat is all- The advantage 
gained by believing a fiction, is always a minus quantity. We are 
in fact a little more ignorant after it, than we were before. All 
the advantage we gain therefore, by placing credence in the first 
part of the Declaration, is an accession to our ignorance, not our 
knowledge. And some of us have all along been the fools that 
did not know the difference. 

Is it matter of surprise that the subjects of the severe but 
rational and effectual governments of Europe, should mock at us 
for instituting a government, to secure ourselves in rights, which 
we affirm our Creator has endowed us with, in such an unalienable 
manner withal, that we cannot get rid of them if we would ? Is 
it marvellous, that the ready writers of other lands, should scatter 
their sneers at a national literature, in part made up of a vain- 
glorious revelation of what was known before 1 

Suppose our author had set forth the following self-evident 
truths, (which I claim, and I think, shall be able to show are supe- 
rior to those he parades) namely — we hold the following truths to 
be self-evident: that the moon is one solid sphere of gold — that all 
men are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to an 
equal proportion of this treasure; and furthermore, that they are 
likewise endowed by the same authority, with an unalienable right 
to pursue any method to get possession which they think consistent 
with their happiness ! ! The superiority I claim for this setting- 
forth, consists in this,— rit would be precious information to lunatics ; 
whereas for the matter of his, it is as useless to the sane as to 
the insane. Under my dispensation, the moonstruck might insist 
upon their rights, with any given amount of pertinacity ; and 
revel in the full consolation that they were well off as to riches. 
I would not however be understood to insinuate, that this stock 
in the moon would go current in Wall street at present ; or that 
it would pay a debt at the bank, at least, not till the brokers 
began to receive moon-shine for cash, and statements of self- 
evident truths for an increase of knowledge ; but what I would 
insinuate in behalf of this stock is, that quite probably it would 
be useful among the chivalry for the purposes of hypothecation. 
As a matter of pledge it would be superior in value to their 
"sacred honor," and in bona-fide debts far better than their 
proinises. 



35 

I think I have been able to show in tlie progress of this criti- 
cism, that we are indebted to the genius of the soft latitudes, for 
all the profitless abstractions in tlie fore part of the Declaration ; 
and for some sounds at the end of it — and to the genius of the 
high latitudes for the remainder — that is to say, to the South, for 
that part which contains no ideas ; to the North, for that which 
does. And as some of our confederates are ever and anon calcu- 
lating the value of the Union; I will help them in this department 
of their mathematics to the following axioms. What value, the 
vague and inappreciable generalities at the commencement, and 
the sounding nonsense at the end, add to the Declaration ; is pre- 
cisely the value these members add to that Union. Secondly — the 
value of a leak to a ship, or the value of a road to ruin for young 
men, subtracted from any given minuend, the remainder is just 
the value in the Union which they do not bring to it. In fine the 
chivalry, the nuliifiers and repudiators taken in the aggregate, do 
effect an accession to our strength, of an immense minus quantity. 

But would I part with the chivalry fraction of our confederacy 1 
By no means ; certainly to be sure, no. There is an indefinite 
amount of swagger yet to be put forth, before this nation assumes 
among the powers of the earth, that equal station which its vanity 
covets. There is none to do this but the chivalry, therefore they 
are necessary to this "glorious Union." Besides there is an in- 
variable amount of indignation to be expressed for the sneers and 
insults oflfcred to us from abroad. In this department of patriot- 
ism the chivalry excel. Indignation is natural to them, — they 
are born with it, and will snuff" an insult where Thessalian hounds 
could not follow. The genius of the valorous latitudes, will come 
up from the swellings of its indignation, like a lion from the over- 
flowings of Jordan — it will teach the presumptuous nations, by no 
means to lay their uncircumcised hands on any part of the conti- 
nent connected with the " sacred honor of the sacred defenders 
of liberty and the rights of man." ! ! 

Rights of man ! !! These, if they are any thing, must be rights 
which exist, irrespective of government, and in despite of govern- 
ment human or divine. What valuable qualities rights can possess, 
which are not derived from the Divine or any human government, 
I apprehend is yet to be demonstrated. What they are, I could 



never conjecture, unless they might be sui)i)osed to consist of a 
right all men possess, of being born of woman, instead of some 
animal. If this is one of the rights of man ; the chivalry ought 
to account it "sacred:" for so far as I can see, it is all that ope- 
rates to secure them, from the unpleasant contingency of being 
born among a generation of pigs. Perhaps another of these 
"rights of man," consists in the privilege all men have, of dying 
just at that nick of time when they cannot possibly live any longer. 
This again, enures almost exclusively to the advantage of the men 
of soft latitudes. It effectually prevents their going off, a little 
before they are done for. 

The "rights of man" beyond doubt, permit him to wear his 
back on the foreside of his body, if he can get it there ; and to do, 
without fear or molestation, any thing else he pleases, which God 
or man does not prevent. The end of the whole is, that the 
rights of man, secure us in privileges, we could not help possess 
without them — and this is all they can do, and be, w hat is affirm- 
ed of them, rights of man, as contradistinguished from rights 
secured by a government either human or divine. As a contrast 
to such rights as these, let us refer a moment to those secured to us 
by the divine government. It is sufficient to refer to one of them, 
namely — the right to fear God and keep his commandments. 
The administration under that government, has furnished us with 
a most admirable body of rules, examples and precepts, instruct- 
ing us in the way to exercise and enjoy these rights to the greatest 
advantage. Here, we are not cheated with sophisms — we are not 
mocked with words full of sound signifying nothing. A human 
government, if it is good for any thing, secures its subjects in 
the right to enjoy the fruits of their own lawful industry. The 
governments of the earth, have not succeeded perfectly, in this 
their essential duty; but I think our own, so far as the free States 
are concerned, has come nearer to perfection than any other. 

The serious injury, which the faults in the Declaration inflict 
upon us, arises from the fact that their position in this national 
document, enables them to cast their own hue on the national taste 
and genius. Evidences of this are discoverable from the sophisms 
so often in the mouths of demagogues, and in the ears of fools. 
We affect to despise the demagogues ; yet we land the Declaration 



37 

of Independence which is calculated to make them ; and it really 
seems potential for nothing else.* The sophism, "sovereign peo- 
ple ;" ! ! do those who use it, or those who hear it, understand the 
value of the idea communicated by the expression ? If the people 
are sovereign, who are the subjects ? Now and then, a specimen 
of a sovereign without subjects has appeared, who was not a luna- 
tic ; but the station is not one to be coveted, or one to which a sane 
man would commend others, by figure of speech or otherwise. 
H it be replied that the subjects of a sovereign people are the 
rulers, then the meaning of the sophisms comes to this, the rulers are 
the ruled. This is all we can find when we search for the idea in 
the expression, "sovereign people;" a confusion of words of no 
use to sane people, but as evidence, that those who use it, and 
those who tolerate its use, are afflicted with the same melancholy 
confusion of ideas, or total destitution of them, which the words 
themselves exhibit. Because the people of our State, are permit- 
ted to choose their rulers, and thus indirectly assist in making the 
laws that are to govern ; it by no more means follows that they 
are sovereign, than because a thing shines, it is of course gold. 

On sopliisms like these, and those recited from the Declaration 
of Independence, and partaking of their peculiar characteristics, 
is founded in part our national literature. The attempts of our 
writers, to repel the scoffs such a literature is calculated to attract, 
amounts to nothing but a provocation of more. When the advan- 
tage to be gained, by this ostrich policy of shutting our eyes to our 
own infirmities, comes to be appreciated before it is too late to 
pursue another ; the advantages to be gained in fortifying a ref- 
uge of lies, by a stockade of falsehoods, will be discovered in 
season to estimate its worth. But until that eracomes — until the 
full time arrives, when boasting communicates strength, and vain 
glory increases renown, we cannot rationally expect to increase 
our honor by multiplying the deeds that provoke contempt. 

National honor must consist in the good opinion entertained of 
us by other nations, not in a lofty opinion entertained of our- 
selves. If we have hitherto failed to create that opinion abroad ; 
shall we succeed in creating it by a repetition of the acts that 
have all along failed to do it ? Because the big guns of the 
chivalry are adequate to knock this continent into a roar of laugh- 



38 

ter, will a gigantic foreign power be so terrified, " that it dare not 
fio-ht in defence of its just rights ?" When a blast of rain's horns 
in our senate chamber, will throw down the ramparts of Quebec, 
it will do for our swelling patriots to talk of wars as figures of 
speech — but till that millenium of fools comes, it will be better 
for us to keep our patriotic gas, where we keep our other super- 
fluities. 

But the most mournful influences of these national sophisms, is 
exhibited in their eff"ects uponthe national genius. Our statesmen, 
(or the substitutes for them ) accustomed to take sophism for truth, 
will conseqtiently prefer fiction to fact. They would provoke a 
war on the supposition, that great bravery ascribed to our cadets 
in a novel, would enable our armies to gain a decisive victory 
over an enemy in the field. As a belief in a sophism, adds a minus 
quantity to our ideas, and in fact procures an increase of ignorance 
and not knowledge, so trust in any conclusion drawn from similar 
premises, increases our weakness, not our strength. Yet placing 
confidence in such premises, our substitutes for statesmen, would 
provoke a contest in the department of arms with a nation, when 
the chances of success are to the chances of defeat, in about the 
same ratio that accompanies the efl'orts of our writers, to maintain 
against the same nation, a literary supremacy. My fears as to the 
result, are neutralized only by my trust in the goodness of Divine 
providence ; that the same invariable sequense which follows the 
logic of the ostrich, when it reasons itself into a belief, that shut- 
ting its own eyes seals up the vision of its pursuer ; will not follow 
the parallel logic of our government. "The British Government 
dare not fight in defence of its just rights!! !" I trust that gov- 
ernment has too much magnanimity, to take off"ence at what our 
lunatics say. 

If I have succeeded in showing that the statements in the Decla- 
ration of Independence, purporting to be self-evident truths, are 
self-destroying sophisms — that men are not created equal, so far as 
we have any means of knowing — that they are not endowed by 
their Creator with any stronger right to life than to death; and 
that they cannot be endowed with any right to liberty and the pur- 
suit of happiness, because such endowments would nullify them- 
selves ; if 1 have succeeded in all this, I would not have the friends 



39 

of emancipation suppose their argument against the unrighteous- 
ness of the slave system at all weakened thereby. If I have done 
what I purposed to do, I look upon it as taking from the force of 
their reasoiiing a minus quantity, leaving what remains increased, 
not diminislied. It amounts to removing from their side a break- 
ing reed. 

I have never taken up an emancipation document, purposely 
addressed to our understanding, but what these sophisms were set 
forth as the basis of the reasoning ; and being disgusted with them, 
though I hardly knew all the time for what, except from their 
inappreciahility ; I have cast away the emancipation logic with a 
full conviction, that a superstructure raised upon such foundations 
was calculated for no purpose but to fall upon its builders. I would 
not put ray faith in it, because I would not hazard what I valued. 
It appeared more foregone, so to do, than putting trust in the 
shadow of Egypt. 

But when I applied myself " by searching to find out wisdom," 
and discovered that these pretended truths, were no truths — that 
those who used them were deceived, and that those who were 
deceived thereby were not wise ; moreover and besides, that the 
document in which they are placed, would be greatly increased in 
value by their subtraction ; it occurred to me that other produc- 
tions where they were used, might be benefitted by a similar 
process. Accordingly when I contemplated the subject of eman- 
cipation divested of these treacherous additions, I found the 
remainder so increased in force, as to be sufliicient to carry con- 
viction to every mind, endowed with adequate powers to distin- 
guish right from wrong. The argument for emancipation, divested 
of its treacherous allies, leads to the full conviction, that the 
institution of slavery, as it exists in this country, is neither more 
or less than one stupendous fraud. The system, is a strong-hold of 
iniquity, and it is useless for any other purpose. It would be well 
for those who have purposed to pull down that strong-hold, to 
take counsel of the men of this world, who are said to be wiser in 
their day and generation than the children of light, namely, to 
consider what is the method of those men, when they succeed in 
reducing a fortress of the first class, with a strong garrison within 
for its defense. 



40 

It may not be amiss to contemplate that process in detail. 
When in the progress of human afiairs, it is deemed necessary by 
some general in the field, to reduce a fortress of the highest order ; 
his first operations are to clear away all enemies without the 
fortress, who can give the beseigers trouble, or the beseiged assist- 
ance. If he is not able to do this, he is wise to abandon the 
project before he commences the investment. If he succeeds in 
suppressing all enemies from without, sothathecan invest without 
molestation ; he begins to draw his forces towards the devoted 
place, and proceeds to level all out-works and lesser defences, 
reducing the beseiged to the smallest possible space. Having 
done all this, he begins to reconnoitre. If he finds the strong-hold 
to be a work of nature, as for instance a lofty ledge on all sides, 
too high for escalade, and too hard for the mine ; he understands 
there is no alternative, but to draw out his lines of circumvalla- 
tion, and cutting off the beseiged from all communication with 
others, leave them to surrender when their resources for subsist- 
ence fail. On the other hand, if the ramparts are walls of stone, 
wholly or in part artificial, he understands what man is able to 
build up, man is able to pull down. For there has never been a 
strong-hold; in point of space from the Gualior rock in India to 
the fortress of Quebec ; or in point of time from the siege of 
Tyre (which occupied the Chaldees thirteen years) to the reduc- 
tion of the citadel of Antwerp, but what has surrendered. The 
next business of the beseigers, is to find that place in the rampart 
most feasible for their operations. This done, the chief by no 
means expects to halloo the walls down ; or to bring the beseiged 
to terms by threats or insults, or by calling them " man-stealers." 
No, he considers next, whether his implements of war are ade- 
quate to the work — whether his guns are of a calibre to carry a 
shot of sufiicient weight to produce a vibration in the wall: if this 
point is settled to his satisfaction, then for the first time he orders 
the approaches to be made, the mounds to be cast up, and the 
battering train to be brought into position ; namely, into a place, 
where the shot when they smite upon the wall, do it at that moment 
of time when their momentum is greatest. The next object is to 
adjust the time, so that the crash of each successive shot shall 
come upon the rampart in the same spot where its predecessor 



41 

smote, and at the exact moment, to take advantage of the vibra- 
tion effected by that predecessor. All these things are matters 
requiring the most skilfuU engineers. The number of the guns in 
each battery, must be sufficient to apply a shot, before the wall 
can recover from the tremor caused by the previous one ; and the 
munitions must be adequate to supply the guns. If all these mat- 
ters are adjusted right ; when the battery begins to play, and the 
shot to smite with precision and without interruption, so that the 
stroke of each successive one begins, where the other left off; the 
accumulation of power rises, not in the ratio of the number of 
shot, but in the ratio of the cube of that number. It amounts to 
the power of an earthquake. No work of man can withstand its 
vehemence. An adequate combination, would tumble the Andes 
from their foundations. Let no garrison put their trust in walls, 
or their confidence in muniments of stone, when a combination 
that accumulates power like this, can be brought to act against 
them. When the fortress begins to feel distresses hourly, and 
tremors to run to and fro as the strong ramparts stagger to the 
furious strokes of the bullet, and the blocks of stone to fall from 
their places into the mote ; and anon a breach becomes visible : 
a wise general does not order the assaulting column to form in the 
trenches : he waits until the breach becomes practicable, before 
the forlorn hope is marshaled at the head of the assault. A pru- 
dent general understands perfectly, that a column of infantry, 
however brave, cannot be made to pass through a cat hole, so fast 
as they can be decapitated after they have got through. 

The system of slavery is a strong-hold of sin. The implements 
in the warfare of those who war against it, need not be carnal, for 
the ramparts of that strong-hold are not made of stone. Yet all 
the address, the patience, the skill and discipline are necessary to 
reduce the strong-hold, as if its walls were granite. When those 
who purpose to pull it down, have quieted all means of molestation 
from without, so that during the seige, not so much as a dog can 
wag his tongue to their disadvantage — when they have suppressed 
every out-work, and reduced the garrison to the smallest possible 
compass, and to the protection of their lost defences — when they 
have looked and found, that its ramparts are works of man and not 

God — when they are satisfied as to the most feasible point of 
3 



4BS 

attack, and as to the calibre of their implements for carrying a 
missile of a weight proportioned to the strength of the fortifica- 
tion — when their munitions are ample, and their engineers skilful — 
I say, when all these preliminary preparations are made, and the 
battering train is brought to a right position, so that the stroke of 
each successive shot comes, when the tremor caused by its prede- 
cessor has prepared the way, and begins where that left off" : if 
the massy bulwarks of this strong-hold of sin ! do not stagger 
to the furious strokes, and the fast accumulating vehemence! ! I 
shall have less confidence than before, in the intimations of 
scripture ; that the truths is mighty for this very purpose. 

MON DROIT. 



43 



NOTES 



NOTE A. 

Since this criticism has grown to dimensions far exceeding any thing I 
purposed at the commencement, it lias occurred to me, that it would be 
convenient to the reader, to have the first, and so much of the second par- 
agraph, as I have commented on, inserted in a note. I accordingly subjoin 
them here, as they stand in the List edition of our statutes, 

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one 
people to dissolve the pofitical hands Avhich have connected them with an- 
other, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal 
station to which the hiws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a 
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires, that they should declare 
the causes, which impel them to the sej)aration." 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident — That all men are created 
equal ; that tiiey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That 
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their 
just powers from the consent of the governed," &c. 

Tliis is I believe, verbatim et literatim ; except that I have italicized the 
preposition "<o" that its ungrammatical position maybe more obvious. 

NOTE B. 

The ideas set forth are these ; that necessity obliged them to do a certain 
act; which act also nature entitled them to perform. That there are such 
a class of acts is true. Nature entides us (gives us the privilege) to sleep, 
to eat, &c., and other acts, cognate, correspondent or correlative. Itmay 
be said also, that nature obliges (compels) us to do these things. But acts 
of this sort are extremely limited. They are such as belong to man as an 
animal, and not to him as a rational being. A man with a bad cold, is 
entitled by the laws of nature to sneeze; and as he cannot very well help 
doing it ; it may be alledged that necessity obliges him to do it. To go 
into a declaration of causes why we sleep or eat, or do other cognate or 
correlavant acts, would appear particularly superfluous in our day : and I 
can hardly be made to understand, why it was not as much of a superfluity 
seventy years ago. No decent respect, to the opinions of mankind, would 
require a declaration of causes for such acts. Nor do I think a decent 
apology can be made for stating them, if indeed they are causes of a char- 
acter asci-ibed to them. The document subsequently goes into a statement 
of causes, and very good ones they are too, but of a character as diflferent 
from the one alledged of them by the author, as facts ever are from false- 
hoods. They are made by the recital, to consist wholly in the magisterial 
and judicial cruelties of the British government. 

NOTE C. 

When we reduce the rhetoric of the first paragraph to its plain truth, it 
amounts to about this : the " laws of nature," meant simply a tciU, to resent 
certain iDJurie&— the " necessity," a teill to do nothing else but resent ...em. 



44 

The entire expression "laws of nature and of nature's God," furnishes no 
idea more than the simple word nature would furnish. 

Instances of these metaphorical expansions, however, in their appropri- 
ate place, are sometimes exceedingly felicitious. The famous example — 
"sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish," — when we consider the 
time, place, and circumstances, in which it was uttered, is in the highest 
degree beautiful. It is obvious enough to be sure, that these several 
expressions are but a repetition of the same idea ; nevertheless, the want 
of additional ideas in the words uttered, is more than compensated by the 
testimony they furnish of the superabundant and overflowing patriotism 
of the speaker. But a similar expansion inserted in a King's speech from 
the throne, would be as singularly infelicitious as it is happy in the speech 
of an ardent orator. I have frequently observed, that brilliant and devout 
men, in the exercise of prayer, use these metaphorical expansions with a 
very fine effect indeed. The scriptures furnish many specimens of inimi- 
table beauty. Job, in particular, abounds in this trope. Its use is justified, 
and in fact sanctified on certain occasions. Where enthusiasm, devotion 
or ardor, are allowable, there this species of metaphor is admissible. But 
where facts are of more value than rhetoric, it is aa much out of place as 
it would be in a note of hand or bill of exchange. 

NOTE D. 

There is no subject on which I am accustomed to hear so much poor 
logic, as on the subject of "rights," except that of the human mind. I 
could never account for this, unless it arose from confounding the literal 
and metaphorical meanings of the word. Illogical minds, making no dis- 
tinction, the effect of their logic is but to puzzle, not convince. No man 
can be said to have a right to any thing he is not possessed of, unless he has 
such proof of title, as will effect a restoration, A right that cannot be 
proved, how can it be knoion that it is a right ? Possession or the ability to 
get possession are all the proofs of rights. Rights, without one or the 
other of these proofs, are mere pretensions. In our system, that is a right, 
which the law contemplates as one. The southern planter has a right to 
buy and sell men as slaves. He is not only in possession of this right, but 
the law secures him from being dispossessed. His right is as clear, as the 
right to life while it lasts. But the law which gives the planter this right, 
is a cruel law, and the man who exercises the right, in most cases, is as 
cruel aa the code that sanctions it, 

NOTE E. 

To make a man a present of his own face, would be a specimen of gen- 
erosity of the same value, as presenting him an example of what was 
self-evident. If a gentleman should propose to introduce me to myself, for 
the purpose of enlarging the circle of my acquaintance, I should consider 
his politeness of the same kind with that which would exert itself to 
increase my knowledge, by informing me of what I knew before. What 
was self-evident, I must have known ; to suppose to the contrary, pre- 
supposes my powers inadequate to comprehend a statement. If the thing 
to be stated, was what I knew, then there was no use for the statement. If 
it was what I did not know, then it was not sei/'-evident. I think this logic, 
nu)si be sufficient to show, that a statement of self-evident truths, is alto- 
gether a piece of gratuitous nonsense. 



\ 



V 550 - 



.^'\ 
























































^^ •% 





^^v 

.^^ 




15^^ N. MANCHESTER, \ '^, " 
^^'^'^ INDIANA '>*- 




